machine learning

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

2 Aufrufe

machine learning

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- project rubric
- Random Forest.pdf
- 499_AmarnathBunga
- Depth Map Prediction From a Single Image
- IEEE Final Year Projects 2011-2012 :: Data Mining:: Elysium Technologies Pvt Ltd
- Fuzzy
- Random Forest Classification for Mangrove Land Cover Mapping Using Landsat 5 TM and Alos Palsar Imageries
- Handling Imbalanced Data: SMOTE vs. Random Undersampling
- p State 0705 Final
- web design
- Math 540 Weeks 1-11 All Discussions Questions
- DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR PREDICTION OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY USING ENSEMBLE TECHNIQUES
- Seminar Report on Machine Learing
- 1606.06864
- RFandGBM.pdf
- rf.pdf
- data-driven-biomedical-problems.pdf
- Five Dif Methods for Det Pile Capacity.pdf
- Workflow Scheduling System Based on Hybrid Algorithm QPSO_Abstract
- Version-2-Chapter-2.docx

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

001

002

003

004 An alternative for score prediction in rain interrupted

005

006

cricket matches.

007

008 Abhiram Eswaran

009

Department of Computer Science

010

011

University of Massachusetts

012 Amherst, MA 01002

013 aeswaran@umass.edu

014 Akul Swamy

015 Department of Computer Science

016

University of Massachusetts

017

018

Amherst, MA 01002

019 aeswaran@umass.edu

020

021 May 3, 2017

022

023

024

Abstract

025

026

We propose an alternative to the state-of-the-art Duckworth-Lewis-Stern[1]

027

method used to predict scores in a rain interrupted cricket match. Factors like

028

average score at the venue and number of power-play balls remaining highly af-

029 fect the performance of any team. The DLS method fails to take these factors

030 into consideration. We use these along with DLS factors as our features. We then

031 evaluate our model using different regression algorithms and compare the perfor-

032 mance of our model and DLS Method with the ground-truth or the actual score of

033 every match. We show that considering these additional features in the calculation

034 of target score provides a better approximation of the predicted score.

035

036

037 1 Introduction

038

039 The DLS method was introduced as the standard way to predicting target scores in a rain interrupted

040 cricket match in 1997, which was renamed to DLS in 2004. Over the years the game of cricket

041 has evolved with higher scores being scored and chased down. While the game has evolved, the

042 DLS method has been almost the same. The method heavily depends on 2 features, the wickets

043 at hand and the overs left. The method has been criticized because wickets are a more heavily

044

weighted resource than overs.[1] Another shortcoming of the method is that the DLS method does

not account for changes in proportion of the innings for which field restrictions are in place compared

045

to a completed match. In short, the DLS Method has failed to adapt to the evolved game of modern

046

cricket.

047

048 In our project, we came up with a predictive model which considers features like wickets lost, overs

049 left, power play balls left, target score, venue average and total overs of the game, thereby giving

050

an unbiased prediction of the target score for a team. By considering the historical statistics of the

venue and the field restrictions, we solve the existing shortcomings of the DLS method.

051

052 We built a model using the above mentioned features along with the ML regression algorithms like

053 Linear Regression, Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, KNN Regressor and ensemble methods

like Random Forests, Gradient Boosting and AdaBoost.

1

054

Since score prediction is different for 1st and 2nd innings, we consider 2 scenarios to evaluate our

055 model. The first being, rain interrupting 1st innings and the innings being curtailed at the end. In the

056 2nd innings, we consider where rain interrupts and the match is abandoned. To measure our success,

057 we propose two evaluation metrics,

058

059 • The RMSE of our model with baseline score and RMSE of DLS method with baseline

060 score.

061

• The RMSE of the model when considering only DLS features and RMSE of the model

062

when considering all features.

063

064 We found that the model outperformed the DLS-method for the first innings with Decision Trees

065 performing the best. We also found that the model performed with the mentioned features rather

066 than considering overs and wickets as done with the DLS-method. The findings underpin the fact

067 that using additional features like average score of the venue and power play balls left, are critical

068 in giving a better approximation of the target to be chased.

069

070

071

2 Related Work

072

073 Duckworth-Lewis method [2] is the one which is widely accepted in this scenario. It takes into

074 account, wickets and overs remaining as the only resources of a team. The general formula used to

075

compute the target score is given by,

076 T eam20 sresources

T eam20 sparscore = T eam10 sscore ×

077 T eam10 sresources

078

This however does not seem correct and might not always result in a fair score adjustment. Also,

079 with the advent of T20 cricket and power plays, larger totals have been chased down with ease over

080 the recent past in International cricket. The D/L methods fails to take this acceleration into account.

081 We address this by considering power play overs as a feature in our model. Also, the venue plays a

082 key role in determining the final score and we wish to investigate this by employing ML algorithms

083 to make use of these features. In order to improve Duckworth Lewis Stern method, Mankad et al[10]

084 discusses using an alternative to Duckworth-Lewis table by uses a Gibbs sampling scheme related

085 to isotonic regression to provide a nonparametric resource table. This approach helps to reflect the

086 relative run scoring resources available to the two teams, that is overs and wickets in combination.

087

But the approach fails at considering other important factors affecting score prediction.

088 Sethuraman et al.[3] discusses using momentum, venue, player ratings and player history for

089 predicting scores using a machine learning model. The project uses Correlation Based Subset

090 Feature Selection to pick the relevant set of features and runs a linear regression model to predict

091 the score of a cricket match. While momentum and venues have a positive impact, modeling on

092 player history and player rating impacts the performance of the model negatively since form of a

093

player is not quantifiable. We address these problems by considering just the average score in the

venue as a feature. Another work on similar lines is from Kampakis et al. [4]. They perform ML

094

based prediction of outcomes in T20 games in English County cricket. They consider relevant team

095

and player based features in determining the performance. This is a classification problem where

096 they predict the end result of the game, which can find relevant applications to betting. Ours on the

097 other hand, is a regression problem where we try to predict the target for the second innings. Here,

098 we avoid considering team specific features as our method is aimed at performing unbiased score

099 adjustment in case of a rain interruption in a 50 over match.

100

101

Similar to score prediction, they has been related work in different sports that predict the outcome

102 of the game. Albina Yezus et al. [5] is a paper which studies the methods of machine learning

103 used in order to predict outcome of soccer matches. It uses features like match information, season

104 information and table for each moment in the season and models it with machine learning algorithms

105 like Random Forest and K nearest neighbors. The models achieves a prediction accuracy of 60%.

106 On similar lines Liang et al. [6] predict scores in European football games by building a model

107 that can give an accurate prediction on game results based on data of previous matches and relevant

analysis. The model shows the ability of dealing with big data and beats bookmakers on game results

2

108

using classification. The best performing model was found to be Logistic regression achieving an

109 accuracy of 54.5%.

110

111

112 3 Dataset

113

114

The dataset was scraped off Cricinfo[7] using BeautifulSoup. The data contained the ball by ball

details of all one day international matches starting from 2006. The number of test cases was around

115

30000 for 1500 matches for 1st innings and 2nd innings separately. The data scraped consisted of

116

metadata of the match including the venue, umpires, result and day of the match. The ball by ball

117 details contained the striker, non-striker, runs, extras, bowler for each ball. From the above data

118 we picked relevant features like wickets, overs and venue. The average scores of the ground were

119 scraped separately and linked with the venue. The following were the features considered from the

120 scraped data,

121

122 • Balls played

123 • Wickets lost

124 • Cumulative runs scored till the ith ball

125

• Power play balls remaining

126

127

• Average score at the venue

128 • The total number of overs in the match

129

130

For the second innings we used the target the team has to chase as an additional feature. All the data

was integer in type.

131

132

133 4 Methodology

134

135 Our project is an application project where we try to use ML algorithms in the domain of cricket to

136 predict target scores in a rain interrupted game. As a part of the project, we built a pipeline which

137 includes data collection and pre-processing, feature engineering, feature selection, hyperparameter

138

optimization, model learning and regression.

139

140

4.1 Data collection and pre-processing

141

The data was scraped off Cricinfo[7] using Beautifulsoup as mentioned before. The data was ob-

142 tained in a CSV format. The data contained some meta data for each match like ground and umpire

143 information. Further, it contained information at the ball level. ie; The result of each ball played in

144 the match was listed as one row which included details of runs scored, batsman, extras conceded,

145 all of these just for that specific delivery. It was then processed using pandas[8] to extract only the

146 necessary fields into a dataframe.

147

148 4.2 Feature Engineering

149

150 Once the necessary fields were extracted into a dataframe, multiple other features were engineered

151

using these base features. ie; The raw feature was just the ball number and the runs conceded for

the ball. Since, we need to capture the rate of scoring, we compute the cumulative result for each

152

ball or the state of the game at the end of the ith ball. Further, the number of powerplay balls left at

153

every state in the game is computed using the elapsed over information while processing each row.

154 Additionally, we include the average ground score with the aforementioned features. Once all these

155 are engineered, we obtain the final feature vector containing- balls, runs, wicket, groundaverage,

156 ppballsleft and totalovers.

157

158 4.3 Feature Selection

159

160 On using the SelectKBest method from sklearn[9] to perform feature selection, the complete set of

161 features was returned as the best set. This is not surprising as these indeed are features which heavily

determine the scoring in a match and were hand engineered in the first place.

3

162

4.4 Hyperparameter Optimization

163

164 For hyperparameter optimization, we use sklearn’s GridSearchCV method with default parameters.

165 To this method, we pass the regressor object along with the parameters we wish to optimize. We

166 then store the optimized object for later testing and hence avoid re-computation.

167

168 4.5 Learning

169

170 As a part of the learning process for this problem, we explored numerous different regressors. We

171 further trained these models and evaluated the performance on the prediction task at hand. Below,

172

we present to you the details of the models we employed in the process.

173

174

4.5.1 Linear Regression

175 Considering the fact that ours is a regression problem, we chose Linear Regression as our first model.

176 We chose this model owing to the simplicity and straightforwardness. Additionally, we set this up

177 as our simple baseline upon which set an upper bound on the RMSE. Mathematically speaking,

178 Linear Regression tries to fit the best straight line through the set of data points in n dimensions.

179 The equation for the model is as shown below,

180

yi = β0 1 + β1 xi1 + · · · + βp xip + εi = x>

i β + εi , i = 1, . . . , n

181

182 where βi is the weight on the ith feature.

183

184 4.5.2 Decision Trees

185

186

The next model we explored was Decision Trees. We chose to explore this model due to couple of

strong reasons. Firstly, the intuition behind the model’s approach to learning is easy to comprehend.

187

Secondly, the prediction time in case of Decision Trees is quick owing to the structure of the model.

188

On a high level, the way the learning proceeds is by choosing the best attribute and the best threshold

189 for splitting. The best is the one which minimizes the residual sum of squares. How long this process

190 continues can be controlled using the depth or the number of data points necessary at a node for it

191 to be split.

192

193 4.5.3 Random forests

194

195 Moving ahead, we switched over to experimenting with ensemble models owing to their better

196

fitting and generalization accuracy. Random forests are essentially multiple decision trees which are

built by choosing a subset of samples every time and again inducing more de-correlation by using

197

a random subset of features at every split. This way, the trees are built and the relationships are

198

learned. The results of all the trees are then combined via averaging, majority voting etc;

199

200

4.5.4 Comparison

201

202 Comparing the above mentioned 3 models, the linear regression model, though simple and straight-

203 forward, fails to capture complex non-linear relationships and hence fails to perform well in complex

204 scenarios like this one. However, decision tree is much better in such cases where it can capture com-

205 plex decision boundaries and also deal with missing values in data, which we have in ours. Since,

206 it is a model of high capacity, it might also model noise and lead to overfitting. To avoid this,

207

we switch to ensembles which strike a good balance between variance and bias, thereby achieving

greater accuracy than other models. Hence, the comparison between the above 3 models.

208

209

4.5.5 Other regressors

210

211 Apart from the above mentioned regressors, we explored other regressors including lasso, gradient

212 boosting regressor and KNN. KNN is a non-parametric model which memorizes the vector space

213 and derives results using the results of neighborhood data points. Lasso is a method where linear

214 regression with l1 regularization is used which performs feature selection as well as learning. It tries

215 to drive only some weights to zero thereby giving less importance to those features. The gradient

boosting regressor is one which produces a prediction model in the form of an ensemble of weak

4

216

prediction models, typically decision trees. It builds the model in a stage-wise fashion like other

217 boosting methods do, and it generalizes them by allowing optimization of an arbitrary differentiable

218 loss function. AdaBoost, Logistic regression and support vector regression were also tried in the

219 modeling.

220

221 4.6 Testing

222

223 The testing procedure was pretty straightforward for all the models. We selected the best performing

224 model parameters using GridSearchCV and then ran prediction on a held out test set. The RMSE

225 of this prediction with the ground truth was taken and compared with the RMSE of the DL method

226 with the ground truth. We also compared the RMSE of the model with all features and features of

227

DLS-Method. More details regarding these experiments and results are discussed in the next two

sections.

228

229

230 5 Experiments and Results

231

232 The dataset scraped was split into test and training set in 80:20 ratio. The test set was held out

233 for final evaluation. The training set was used with GridSearch to tune the hyperparameters for

234 individual models.

235

236 5.1 Layout of the pipeline

237

238 The layout of the pipeline started with Hyperparameter optimization with GridSearch and then using

239

the best hyperparameters obtained for Model Learning. We fit the model with the best hyperparam-

eters obtained, obtain the training error and save the fitted model as a pickle to avoid repeated

240

training. We also eliminated feature selection from the pipeline since the best number of features

241

returned with Statistical Dependence Filtering was the maximum number of features in the dataset.

242

243

5.2 Hyperparamter Optimization

244

245 We used GridsearchCV to optimize our hyperparameters. We present the list of hyperparameters

246 tuned for each of the models below.

247

248 • Lasso- alpha

249 • Decision Tree- min samples split, max depth, min samples leaf, max leaf nodes

250

251

• Logistic Regression- C

252 • SVR- kernel, C, gamma

253 • Random Forests- n estimators, max features, max depth, min samples split, bootstrap

254

• Gradient Boosting- learning rate, max depth

255

256 • AdaBoost- n estimators

257

258 5.3 Training

259

260

The main objective of the project was to prove that having a linear dependency, like the DLS-method

between the predicted score and the features would give poorer results. So we set Linear Regression

261

as our baseline method. Every other model trained yielded better results than Linear Regression.

262

263 Using the best hyperparameters obtained from GridSearch we fitted the model on the training set

264 and obtained the training error on the validation set. We did this for the two scenarios, for rain

265 interruption in 1st innings and rain interruption in the 2nd innings. The training errors for the

266

scenarios are provided in Table 1. It was observed that Decision Trees and Gradient Boosting gave

the minimum training errors for 1st innings and 2nd innings respectively. Figure 1 and Figure 2

267

shows the RMSE training errors for each of the regressors selected.

268

269 In terms of speed, Linear Regression and Decision Trees took the minimum to train. Due to the

number of hyper-parameters involved SVR took the highest time in hyperparameter optimization.

5

270

271 Method RMSE for 1st innings RMSE for 2nd innings

272 Baseline(Linear Regression) 24.503 21.715

273 Lasso 24.406 21.506

274 Logistic Regression 23.945 19.301

275 SVR 23.633 18.768

276

Decision Trees 22.699 5.911

Random Forests 22.763 5.166

277

Gradient Boosting 22.913 4.519

278

Adaboost 23.168 16.847

279

280 Table 1: Training Errors for 1st innings

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

Figure 1: Training RMSE for 1st innings

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323 Figure 2: Training RMSE for 2nd innings

6

324 Innings RMSE for ML Prediction RMSE for DLS Method

325 1st innings 34.335 36.073

326 2nd innings 36.273 22.392

327

328 Table 2: Comparision of ML Prediction Model with the state of the art DLS-Method. ie; Test RMSE

329

330 Innings RMSE with all features RMSE with DLS Features

331 1st innings 34.335 36.616

332 2nd innings 36.273 37.2674

333

334 Table 3: Comparision of ML Prediction Model with all features and DLS features

335

336

337 5.4 Testing

338

339 From the above models we used the test set to predict scores for two scenarios,

340

341 • Rain interruption in 1st innings after the 1st team has played 40 overs and the innings was

342 terminated.

343 • Rain interruption in 2nd innings after the 2nd team has played 40 overs and the match was

344 abandoned.

345

346 To test the effectiveness of our predictions, we used the final scores scored by each team in the

347 innings and scaled it down to 40 overs in both scenarios. This score would incorporate the ground

348 truth of their actual score at 40 overs. We then use these scores, to compute the root mean square

349 error of our predictions and root mean square of the DLS-method. Table 2 presents the performance

350 of the best models against the DLS-Method for the 1st innings and 2nd innings. We discuss the

351 importance of the results in the next section.

352 In Table 3 we also present the performance of the best models with all features and the features used

353 by DLS Method in the computation of the predicted scores. It is clear from the results that using the

354 suggested features gives better generalization performance. We discuss in depth in the next section.

355

In terms of speed decision trees had the best speed for prediction. In terms of generalization error

356

Decision trees also gave the best performance for 1st innings scenario. Gradient Boosting performed

357 the best for 2nd innings predictions.

358

359

360 6 Discussion and Conclusion

361

362 We set out with this project to prove the DLS-method of considering just 2 features for score predic-

363 tion is archiac as the game as evolved. The results presented in Table 2 and Table 3 exactly reflect

364 this.

365

Table 3 proves the hypotheses that it is important to consider more features, especially power

366 play balls left and ground average into consideration to predict the score in a rain interrupted match.

367 This would solve for the criticism DLS-method has perennially faced.

368

369

Table 2 validates the success of the Machine Learning model we used to predict scores and its

comparison with the DLS Method. For 1st innings the best performing model was Decision Tree

370

Regressor, this is attributed to the fact that Decision tree regressor uses the training data to pick

371

variables and thresholds to optimize a local performance heuristic at each node in the tree. Further,

372 since we are trying to predict scores at abrupt times of a match, there are chances that we would

373 have not seen such values in training. This boils down to the problem of handling missing values and

374 Decision Trees are pretty powerful in this regard. Hence, our models gives a better generalization

375 error than the state of the art DLS model for first innings. The model for the 2nd innings fails

376 because the 2nd innings models heavily on the data for the 2nd innings and just uses target as an

377 additional feature to predict the score of the 2nd team. This is unlike what DLS method does. Hence

the DLS is better for the 2nd innings.

7

378

In a nutshell, the project was a successful one. We achieved the core objective which showed the bias

379

in DLS-Method with lesser features. The model we developed gave the best results than existing

380 state of the art methods in the first innings. We got to test the performance of regression algorithms

381 on the features we built and discovered decision trees and ensemble methods worked the best. We

382 also found out that not having proper features would impact the model negatively as in the case

383 of 2nd innings where the ML model failed compared to DLS Method. Future work for this project

384 would include building a robust model for 2nd innings which would consider more features and give

385 a better approximation of the score.

386

387 7 References

388

389 [1] The Duckworth Lewis factor Srinivas Bhogle, March 06 2003

390

[2] Duckworth-Lewis Method Wikipedia

391

392 [3] A Learning Algorithm for Prediction in the game of cricket Sethuraman, Parameswaran Raman, Vijay

393

Ramakrishna

394 [4] Using Machine Learning to Predict the Outcome of English County twenty over Cricket Matches Stylianos

395 Kampakis, William Thomas, 2015

396 [5] Predicting outcome of soccer matches using machine learning Albina Yezus, Saint-Petersburg State Univer-

397 sity, 2014

398 [6] Result Prediction for European Football Games Xiaowei Liang, Zhuodi Liu and Rongqi Yan, 2015

399

400

[7] ESPN Cricinfo www.espncricinfo.com

401 [8] Pandas pandas.pydata.org

402 [9] Sklearn scikit-learn.org

403

404

[10] Study and Analysis of Duckworth Lewis Method Sapan H. Mankad, Anuj Chaudhary, Nikunj Dalsaniya,

Vivek Mandir, Nirma University, 2014

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

- project rubricHochgeladen vonapi-203599078
- Random Forest.pdfHochgeladen vonkrishnanaarti
- 499_AmarnathBungaHochgeladen vonAmar Nath
- Depth Map Prediction From a Single ImageHochgeladen vonVivek Bhadouria
- IEEE Final Year Projects 2011-2012 :: Data Mining:: Elysium Technologies Pvt LtdHochgeladen vonsunda_pass
- FuzzyHochgeladen vonSudharsananPRS
- Random Forest Classification for Mangrove Land Cover Mapping Using Landsat 5 TM and Alos Palsar ImageriesHochgeladen vonIkki Phoenix
- Handling Imbalanced Data: SMOTE vs. Random UndersamplingHochgeladen vonAnonymous kw8Yrp0R5r
- p State 0705 FinalHochgeladen vonfadligmail
- web designHochgeladen vonAndrea Kljaić
- Math 540 Weeks 1-11 All Discussions QuestionsHochgeladen vonGaryoFrobon
- DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR PREDICTION OF HUMAN PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY USING ENSEMBLE TECHNIQUESHochgeladen vonCS & IT
- Seminar Report on Machine LearingHochgeladen vonharshit
- 1606.06864Hochgeladen vonsylasree K Sheshadri
- RFandGBM.pdfHochgeladen vonisaias.prestes
- rf.pdfHochgeladen vonAllam Jayaprakash
- data-driven-biomedical-problems.pdfHochgeladen vonRaphael Rissato
- Five Dif Methods for Det Pile Capacity.pdfHochgeladen vonJahid Jahidul Islam Khan
- Workflow Scheduling System Based on Hybrid Algorithm QPSO_AbstractHochgeladen vonManoj Kumar Mohan
- Version-2-Chapter-2.docxHochgeladen vonRONALD RIVERA
- conv-cifar10-aug2010.pdfHochgeladen vonElvisVelasqueEspinoza
- Radon Data MachinelearHochgeladen vonTara Gonzales
- Condition Monitoring of Self Aligning Carrying Idler (SAI) InHochgeladen vonjhon ortiz
- Fung 2005Hochgeladen vonHermeson Lima
- Viola 2003Hochgeladen vonmuhammad Ehsan Ullah
- FinancialDistressPredictionofIndianCompanies-FuturePerspectives.pdfHochgeladen vonLuis Rod
- Resource Availability Prediction in the Grid: Taxonomy and Review of State of the ArtHochgeladen vonIJEACS UK
- 20065Hochgeladen vonEbe Nezer G
- BBC News - Davos 2011_ Why Do Economists Get It So WrongHochgeladen vonDhanachandra Rajkumar
- Silence of Spotless MindHochgeladen vonHimanshu

- control system notes.pdfHochgeladen vonMohammed Faizan
- Seminar Report ANNHochgeladen vonkartik143
- An Introduction to System Dynamics - First and Second Order Linear SystemsHochgeladen vonhmalikn7581
- Guided Notes for Solving Systems by GraphingHochgeladen vonjbaileymath
- csci-HW-2-1Hochgeladen von이현지
- e PuzzlesHochgeladen vondvrao_chowdary
- Draft ICTEd 476-AI EducationHochgeladen vonkamalshrish
- Chapter 3 Pre-quize 354Hochgeladen vonsmaude01
- Sol 5Hochgeladen vondorsapiri
- Lecture 1Hochgeladen vonZakariya Mohamed
- Auction_Trans.pdfHochgeladen vonRaphael Quintão
- UNIT-5 Part-2 coding theory.pdfHochgeladen vonsubramanyam62
- 1539587333104_Group10 Project.pdfHochgeladen vonDhurai
- Riadi Thesis 2014 Jan (1)Hochgeladen vonAmit Pratap Singh
- ChaosBookHochgeladen vonmydeardog
- Breaking WEP Over CoffeeHochgeladen vonSam Russell
- Answer for Assignment 2Hochgeladen vonKelly Obrien
- Lecture 1Hochgeladen vonRajesh Kumar
- lectr14Hochgeladen vonHira Masood
- Optimizare rafinarieHochgeladen vonscorpion2001gla
- DCSHochgeladen vonRanjita Singh
- Eee v Modern Control Theory [10ee55] NotesHochgeladen vonJeyanthi Ganesan
- week_04Hochgeladen vonAnonymous N3LpAX
- In the simplest case, an optimization problem consists of maximizing or minimizing a real function by systematically choosing input values from within an allowed set and computing the value of the function. The generalization of optimization theory and techniques to other formulations comprises a large area of applied mathematics. More generally, optimization includes finding "best available" values of some objective function given a defined domain (or a set of constraints), including a variety of different types of objective functions and different types of domains.Hochgeladen vonabhywa
- Shallow Cylindrical Shell Snap-throughHochgeladen vonDan Wolf
- Algorithms problemsHochgeladen vonRekha Govindaraj
- Waldon nHochgeladen vonNadirSha Mavudi
- Improvement of the Recognition Rate by Random ForestHochgeladen vonAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Davide TesiHochgeladen vonDavide Di Benedetto
- Waiting_Line_Management.pdfHochgeladen vonAmrita Prasad